September 18, 2011

The campus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison erupted this week after the release of two studies documenting the heavy use of race in deciding which students to admit to the undergraduate and law schools....

[The Center for Equal Opportunity] has published studies of racial double standards in admissions at scores of public colleges and universities across the country with similar findings, but none has caused such a violent reaction.

Instead of addressing the findings of the study, the university’s vice provost for diversity, Damon A. Williams, dishonestly told students that “CEO has one mission and one mission only: dismantle the gains that were achieved by the civil-rights movement.” In fact, CEO’s only mission is to promote color-blind equal opportunity so that, in Martin Luther King’s vision, no one will be judged by the color of his or her skin.

Egged on by inflammatory comments by university officials, student groups organized a flashmob via a Facebook page that was filled with propaganda and outright lies about CEO wanting to dismantle their student groups. More than a hundred angry students stormed the press conference at the Doubletree Hotel in Madison, where CEO President Roger Clegg was releasing the study.

I didn't see the Facebook page. I'd like to see the specific text of what was said. Chavez also talks about the debate that took place on campus that evening, but that event, as I've blogged — here and here — was pretty sedate, so Chavez limits herself to quoting a professor's tweets that called Clegg a "racist" and said he sounded "like the whitest white boy I’ve ever heard."

Ironically, "whitest white boy" was probably an attempt to convey the very calm and bland recitation of facts and principles that characterized Clegg's presentation. As I've said, the event was sedate. There were no Doubletree antics [at the debate]. Perhaps it was a reverse flashmob, and social media were used effectively to let the students know that they needed to be respectful, allow the speakers to speak, and engage in rational dialogue that makes our university look like the institution of higher learning that it purports to be.

Indeed, Chavez concludes:

You’d think that a responsible university would denounce the intimidation and lack of civility by its students and faculty. Instead, Vice Provost Williams told the student paper, “I’m most excited about how well the students represented themselves, the passion with which they engaged, the respectful tone in how they did it and the thoughtfulness of their questions and interactions.”

It appears that not only are the university’s admissions policies deeply discriminatory, but also that university officials applaud name-calling, distortion and outright physical assault.

But Williams's characterization of the debate was correct! Chavez conflates the shameful incident at the Doubletree hotel with the beautifully run event that took place on campus.

If Chavez intends to call citizens to a rational, serious debate about affirmative action, then she must be clear and fair and accurate about all the facts. To do that, she must scrupulously avoid demagoguery.

ADDED: The tweeting professor is Sara Goldrick-Rab, who writes an education blog called The Education Optimists. Here is her post about the CEO and Roger Clegg. It concludes: "The organization is not only dead wrong, it is unashamedly racist." Here is her Twitter feed, and I can see that she's responded to my post: "Look at my actual tweet - which was misreported- I was commenting on the very odd way he said the word Latino. Nothing more." Okay, so my speculation about what her tweet meant — which I've amplified in the comments — was completely wrong. He just used the whitest possible pronunciation of the word "Latino."

The on campus event was admirable. It was huge and people behaved extremely well. It could have been a riot. Williams and the students deserve praise for getting it together to that degree after the initial emotion spike.

This is not a rational debate, Althouse, as you have consistently shown in your own postings.

You use your hyper rational voice when you are advancing your self interest... that is feminism and quotas for women.

You instantly switch to mocking and name calling when you discuss my self interest, that is the self interest of white hetero men.

You haven't had much to say about Vice Provost Damon William's personal goon squad, either. How in the hell is a university functionary allowed to call out a goon squad to intimidate people who threaten his self interest? Why wasn't he disciplined or fired on the spot for using his office to call out his thugs?

Perhaps you should avoid demagoguery on this issue Althouse. You prattle on endlessly about social justice and such bullshit when it comes to your and your son's self interest. You switch to mocking and taunting when it comes to the self interest of white hetero men.

When do I get to advance my self interest as some kind of sanctified social justice crusade?

This is about who gets the swag. Has nothing to do with rationalism. It's a fight over the spoils. You've got the upper hand right now. Which is why you are appealing to rationalism. Your appeal to rationalism is "civility bullshit."

I think the "tweet" is serious enough ... that the students that got them. Should all be given demerits. And, told they're close to being tossed off of campus because of riot related behaviors on private property.

And, the workers who were shoved down, if they filed police reports ... should be allowed to see lineups of students. To see if any one of them is identified as having been violent at the hotel "presser."

Meanwhile, with yesterday's photos of the 3 elder goons at the Rotunda, making believe they were students. When they were more likely union organizers at least 50 years of age. And, purposely disguising their appearances with winter hats, gear, and gloves ... Someone should hone in on their faces and see if one of them wasn't Roger Clegg, himself.

Give this time ... and soon one of the ladies will begin screaming "choke-hold," versus rape. Or "funny looks." Or "stalking.

This crap isn't a movement, yet.

Nacient.

And, the NY Post is a right wing daily. Why are they behind a story in Madison, Wisconsin?

Oh, at NYU LAW you have ZERO PROBLEMS. The very competent Ken Thompson is a graduate of NYU LAW!

This whole idea that Blacks don't make good lawyers is the biggest bullshit story I've ever heard.

Johnnie Cochran was an ace. Plenty of other examples out there. And, Martin Luther King, Jr., was Black. Though I think he carried a preacher's credential.

I hope the kids at campus start a movement to GET RID OF TENURE! Jobs no longer offer lifetime guarentees. Tenure's been about the worst thing that ever happened to colleges and universities in the first place.

So Linda Chavez can go with her kakamamie angle. But the response should be to go for blood!

The kids won't riot over tenure.

But by a show of numbers the lame-brained, frozen in time socialists ... could see a need to retire.

I do agree that exaggerations weaken each side's legitimacy. And I also agree with Harsh Pencil that the Doubletree mob aggression is partially attributable to Vice Provost Williams. A civil suit by one of the assaulted employees with Williams as a named defendant would be interesting...

And then "Williams and the students deserve praise for getting it together to that degree after the initial emotion spike" Surely those sweet young people and their PhD mentor can be excused ONE physically violent mob action of intimidation? How is left supposed to train the disruptive grievance-mongers of the future otherwise?!?

Universities used to teach detached argumentation and reasoning, now they hire Diversity thugs to propagandize and enforce uniform thought.

As such, Universities long ago abandoned any pretense to rational discourse, a demand raised only when the other side duplicates their demagoguery.

While I am pleased to see UW-M able to stage an actual debate (with only a few shouters among them), the veneer is thin. The vuvuzelas and capitol chanting and hotel storming are just beneath the surface.

The on campus event was admirable. It was huge and people behaved extremely well.

Except that Vice Provost Williams had already poisoned the well by calling out his thugs at the press conference.

A bizarre statement, Althouse.

A university functionary makes a demagogic appeal to student thugs, with the undisguised purpose of protecting his own job and expanding his political power, and you want to praise this SOB for restraint!

Who has this "prized list" of cell phone numbers that belong to the students? Not one of them "trusts" a teacher. Or a dorm manager. Or anyone? To say they're getting cell phone numbers from strangers telling them of "free beer" and riots?

These kids get set off on a dime? And, the school thinks that nothing's wrong with the new class that just got admitted?

To think that Tommy Thompson used to come to campus to befriend students. And, invite those who wanted to go and see his mansion ... to go there and see the place.

This Damon character ... dollars to doughnuts has only been hired because he's black. (Or he assumed a Black person's first name so he could get this job.) But his job only revolves around skin color.

Imagine telling students what he hears. And, when they write out their semester's check ... what part of that goes into his pockets.

Just in case the 150 or so rioters think it's just "free beer" stuff?

I also think it should be the law to tell these kids the amounts of money they are borrowing to attend this school is NON-DISCHARGED DEBT.

Tell them Linda Chavez really appreciates their generosity.

Name your price! Tell the students ALL the jobs for these unqualified "types" ... usually doesn't lead to finding employment.

Clegg's.job is to promote his study. He benefits by appearing cool, calm and rational. Chavez's job is to promote CEO, and she benefits by cranking up the conflict. The voice-chancellor for having colored faces in university literature benefits by having a large group of students who will yell, chant and stomp their feet on cue, just in case a chancellor is appointed who might question his utility in a time of tight budgets.

You confuse me. First you say, "There were no Doubletree antics." then say, "the shameful incident at the Doubletree hotel..."

How can there be a shameful incident if there were no antics? Not that I care that much. UWM's reaction was denial and rouse up the liberal students. No honest inquiry on its part. Analyzing Chavez's statement misses the forest for the trees.

We didn't disrupt and swarm one of the two events by CEO. We DESERVE credit for our restaint! In fact, because we showed restraint at one event, the other one should be completely forgotten. However, we may or may not restrain ourselves at a similar event in the future......remember that!

I think that is pretty much the message that the thug crowd is sending.

I watched the debates last night on youtube. It was not exactly what I would call civil. There was a fair amout of catcalling and shouted accusations from the audience, and the Q&A was characterized by angry rants by students. If by civil, you mean they didn't start up a chant, well actually, they did that at the end, too. Cooler heads ultimately prevailed, but it was far from a model of a respectful hearing of both sides.

We have all seen nine months of a tantrum by those in Madison who do not like a challenge to their personal status quo. The rest of the world is entering the enclave and the natives do not like it one bit. They are afraid and fearful for their futures and disguise these emotions with violent and militant expression just short of actual violence. Yet, they have nothing to show for their nine-months of emotional investment. In fact, more and different challenges to the enclave are emerging. As a result, the line between emotive rhetoric and play violence moves closer and closer to real violence. I will be saddened, but not in the least surprised, when such events happen.

"There was a fair amout of catcalling and shouted accusations from the audience, and the Q&A was characterized by angry rants by students."

Then Ann's whole point is demolished. Chavez' conflation was totally legitimate. Of course, UW seems to have absurldy low standards for their students, so maybe shouting and chanting are the best one can expect.

I am not defending the riot at the Doubletree. If it was up to me the students would be arrested along with Williams, who would do time for inciting to riot. But it doesn't do the conservative arguments any good here for Chavez to be making stuff up. It just didn't happen the way she represents it. Our case is good enough if we just stick to the truth.

The radical protesting students of the 60's are now in charge of the university. The protesting students think that this is the way to get ahead, afterall, it worked for their professors, why shouldn't it work for them.

It would appear that Chavez was actually correct in her characterization of the event. Or, at the very least, that Ann has no overall ground to stand on in using such a low standard - her own video posted on this blog - to denounce Chavez.

"Seriously. And that debate was not perfectly civil either. From the last few months on your blog I have gotten a very low opinion of Wisconsin."

Shanna, there is Madison and there is the rest of Wisconsin. The rest of Wisconsin supports Madison with its taxes and its students and in return gets a pretty good college football team and an utter sense of disrespect for those outside of Dane County.

"You confuse me. First you say, "There were no Doubletree antics." then say, "the shameful incident at the Doubletree hotel..." How can there be a shameful incident if there were no antics? "

So, you want to be the person who was in fact fooled by Chavez's sleight of hand? I said she conflated 2 events. You're seriously saying that even after reading my post you think there was only one event?!

I'm not defending or promoting anything. I am observing, analyzing, and speaking honestly. I didn't say it's good for a professor to tweet in that joking mode, but I am saying that I'm guessing that the meaning of the line is that Clegg had a certain demeanor. Notice the reference to how he sounded, not how he looked. In looks, Clegg and the other speaker, Prof. Church, were quite similar. Actually, the spoke in a pretty similar way, which is why the event felt sedate.

As for stereotyping white people... stereotyping isn't the best form of discourse, and trying to diminish Clegg's statements with stereotyping isn't the best idea. But, there is a deeper observation, hard to tweet, that if an intelligent and savvy American wanted to adopt a policy of racial oppression today, he would present it in measured tones with rational arguments. It's good packaging.

But I'm not saying either side really wants to oppress people of different races. I'm just saying that it would be good politics to act all rational and calm and principled if you wanted to pull it off.

So, you want to be the person who was in fact fooled by Chavez's sleight of hand? I said she conflated 2 events. You're seriously saying that even after reading my post you think there was only one event?!

There is no "sleight of hand," Althouse.

Vice Provost Williams poisoned the well with his call to thugs. Both events were plunged into demagoguery by William's call to thuggery.

Your attempt to separate the two events is bogus.

The university lent its imprimatur to Williams' thuggery. He's still employed at the university. He has not been disciplined by the university. The debate took place with that as an established fact.

Do I really have to sit through a video of the whole thing, or can we come up with a consensus? If there were any of the disruptions described above, then "pretty sedate" does not adequately or accurately describe the event.

"You are still avoiding the point being raised by your commentters here Ann."

Oh, bullshit, I am not. I've already blogged about the Doubletree incident and you know what I think about that. I've repeated here what I think of it.

This post is about what Chavez wrote, and it has a glaring flaw. She cannot play the role she wants to play and misrepresent the facts. She cherry-picked what fit her template, in a political fashion. But she wants to rest on lofty principles. You've got to do that right, and I'm calling her on it.

But I'm not saying either side really wants to oppress people of different races. I'm just saying that it would be good politics to act all rational and calm and principled if you wanted to pull it off.

I've read this blog for close to three years, and this is the most dishonest post I've read here.

Start with the title. Chavez did not attack UW-Madison. She wrote about the shitty treatment her organization received from UW faculty and students. Her organization was ATTACKED.

Why didn't you name Sara Goldrick-Rab as the professor who claimed she was about to watch a debate with a racist? Further, why did you put scare quotes around the word racist? Sara Goldrick-Rab didn't use quotes. She is comfortable calling someone she presumably does not know a racist.

And your defense of her using the phrase the "whitest white boy" is pathetic. How on earth could you possibly know what motivated her to use that language?

Finally, why do you assume Vice Provost Williams comments about how proud he was of the student's behavior is limited only to the debate? You seem to have invented that context. In addition, I'm not aware that he publicly admonished them for their brutish behavior at the Doubletree. To the contrary, he instigated it.

The most interesting note about the debate was that Althouse didn't really address what they spoke about.

Church soundly trounced Mr. Clegg, who was made to look like a fool. I know he's a bright guy, but coming into the lion's den and thinking you'd beat someone as brilliant as church is asinine. Of course, Althouse only posted the rather inflammatory portions of the debate, being biased as usual.

She would have been more effective and more accurate by confining her complaints to the email by VP Williams and its immediate consequences at the press conference.

Of the two, I find Williams' actions much more objectionable. He was deliberately highly inflammatory and gave no rebuttal other than to demonize his opponents. This is hardly the conduct appropriate to a senior member of a university administration.

The lawsuit will proceed (assuming standing) and then there will be discovery of Williams' memos, emails, etc. If Williams is this intemperate and reckless in private, it should be interesting.

Chavez and her organization are raising important and legitimate issues. The main demagoguery is trivializing and demonizing her organization and actions. The university's position seems to be "How dare you question us."

Much as I like Linda Chavez, I have to agree with you, Professor, that she seems to have conflated the violent events at the Doubletree with the debate, which you and Meade attended and which was more peaceful.

In fairness to Chavez, she has been making the rational case against affirmative action for decades now. And gotten nowhere. In a nutshell, Chavez argues that affirmative action no longer primarily benefits those who truly need a hand up to compensate for the situation into which they were born. Chavez argues, correctly, that her last name gives bonus points to her sons, who are the children of a wealthy former cabinet member and senatorial candidate, and current member of the Board of Directors for major corporations. Do you argue to the contrary?

Blacks in the inner city, Latinos in the Barrio, and whites in Appalachia both understand that affirmative action is a way to see to it that middle and upper class African-American and Latinos get breaks that they will never get -- unless they can run fast holding a football under their arm or blow past a 300 lb lineman to twist a quarterback into a pretzel.

Meanwhile, I assert that the violence at the Doubletree, and the plain fact that it appeared to have been stimulated by the overwrought words of your own vice-provost Williams, says more about the University of Wisconsin than the peaceful debate at South Hall.

I don't understand why vice-provost Williams has not been publicly reprimanded by the University's administration. I don't understand why the University is not cooperating with law enforcement to identify and expel any students involved in the Doubletree incident.

Then I'll think that Linda Chavez is wrong to attack the University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Christ. Walker gets protested anywhere he goes in Wisconsin, and even other states. Kentuckians sat out in the rain to protest him a few days ago. Can't remember a governor of any state getting that type of treatment.

Althouse: " I didn't say it's good for a professor to tweet in that joking mode, "

I'm afraid I did not get the joke. The language of that tweet is all part of the demonization process. In this context, there is no joke about it. It's belittling your opposition by emphasizing his racial characteristics.

Does Vice Provost have curly hair or large lips? Would it be even remotely funny to "joke" about his appearance in this context? Ever? I don't think you would get many laughs.

I would say that congratulations are in order because the debate remained civil DESPITE Williams' despicable tactics.

Walker gets protested anywhere he goes in Wisconsin, and even other states. Kentuckians sat out in the rain to protest him a few days ago. Can't remember a governor of any state getting that type of treatment.

So what- there are leftist cranks in every town who pay more attention to national politics instead of their own community. Bunch of wankers.

"The outrageous behavior didn’t end there. Later that day, Clegg debated UW law professor Larry Church on campus. The crowd booed, hissed, and shouted insults, continuously interrupting Clegg during the debate."

I am perfectly willing to accept Althouse's description of the debate as civil. She has proved over time that she is an honest observer. A few catcalls and stupid comments do not undermine overall civility.

My concern is Williams' initial inflammatory action. You could say he tried to moderate it. I think he's just trying to have it both ways.

Or maybe he got some adult supervision after his first blast? Let's hope so.

continuing on the theme stated by "pogo" at http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/09/ceo-founder-linda-chavez-attacks.html?showComment=1316357540087#c107185635453892330

As (adjunct) teacher of philosophy and ethics, I have long observed that people appeal to "reason" when they are losing. "Let's all think rationally about this now...." Once they have won, then they appeal to power: "the decision has been made, let's all get along."

The Enlightenment was all about using "reason" to displace religious tradition and authority. Now that the "rationalists" have successfully done so, they demagogue and threaten. That is, they play the same game that was being played by the religious traditionalists they overturned.

The outrageous behavior didn’t end there (Doubletree]. Later that day, Clegg debated UW law professor Larry Church on campus. The crowd booed, hissed, and shouted insults, continuously interrupting Clegg during the debate.

Linda Chavez crosses the line here. In no way did Vice Provost Williams "applaud physical assault" since he was complimenting the students for their behavior at the debate at which there was no physical assault.

Williams may have incredibly low standards for student behavior, as does apparently Ann, but what Chavez said was really wrong and should be retracted. She's hurting her cause. Ann was right to call her on it.

Vice Provost for Diversity? Associate Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology? Really? Does Wisconsin actually teach anything of substance or value? Pour the money into the football team at least they're nationally ranked.

Well, uh, I'll tell you. Earlier today, um...I was going through my dream journal, and...I was, uh, pulling some jokes for my bit tonight, and I saw a [exaggerated Spanish accent] Latina woman, um...with a cart, selling beef franks. And...I guess I kind of was under the impression that we live in an evolved enough culture that doesn't need to devour the murdered carcasses of innocent cows as a snack!

I've seen videos of the "civil" debate she speaks of, and the students were loud, rude and stupid, and damn proud of it. I guess so long as they don't engage in outright physical assault, battery, and false imprisonment, Althouse will goad on the little darlings.

When Vice Provost Williams told the student paper, “I’m most excited about how well the students represented themselves, the passion with which they engaged, the respectful tone in how they did it and the thoughtfulness of their questions and interactions” was he speaking after the events at the Doubletree, events he apparently egged on? Or is there some other verbiage from Williams that would indicate his comments were restricted solely and specifically to events that occured on campus?

Because, unless Williams' comments can somehow be divorced from the events at the Doubletree, then it seems, at minimum, Chaves is entitled to characterize the statement as giving the appearance that 'university officials applaud name-calling, distortion and outright physical assault.'

"I didn't say it's good for a professor to tweet in that joking mode, but I am saying that I'm guessing that the meaning of the line is that Clegg had a certain demeanor."

Yeah, in basic training the black boys tease the white boys for being up-tight. When white boys come to attention they (apparently) pinch their butt cheeks. (I'll let others come to their own homophobic conclusions.) The black boys don't pinch.

Funny story but appropriate coming from a presumed professional?

Seriously Ann!

Why is "joke" a defense? Someone can say "racist" and "white boy" and there is some sort of five-second rule if it's followed with "joke!".

Clegg had a "white" demeanor? Seriously? So if a black man displayed the same demeanor he'd be acting white? Aping (pun intended!) white men? Would it be okay to joke that a black man said "Latino" or "Latina" in the blackest possible of ways? Maybe it would be okay to mention the accent of a Latino speaker and then use the five second "joke" rule?

Different rules for different people is the definition of racist, isn't it?

"He just used the whitest possible pronunciation of the word "Latino.""

I won't say that Cinder Calhoun is funny, because I think being drunk is a requirement for that, but it does illustrate something.

There was a trend for a while for Anglo (I hate that term) newscasters to pronounce Spanish words with an accent. It was stupid, sounded stupid, and was made fun of at every opportunity. I'd be surprised if it happens any more. Putting on an accent for a few words is just dumb and everyone knows it.

Ann’s representation of the events at the debate on campus is an invitation to catcalls and other types of rude behavior in the future. After all, if calling a speaker a racist and not rioting is now the gold standard for assemblies on UW Madison’s campus, Ann opinion, which I’m sure is reflected by many at the school (at least with regard to the campus debate) has now given any group license to do the same and be called well-behaved.

I have read that student behavior at universities hundreds of years ago were also characterized by uncivil behavior. At the University of Virginia rowdy students were a problem. Serious student riots occurred throughout the 1830s and in 1840 a student shot and killed a professor.

I believe that Ann would probably consider this expression of opinion as going a little too far, but in view of the student and faculty behavior at Madison in the last year, you can conclude that we may just be seeing the “good old days.”

In the spirit of free inquiry, why students at any university should be expected to sit quietly to the drone of professorial lectures if they disagree with what the speaker is saying. It’s time to introduce a little robust debate in the classroom and the professor should not be allowed to retaliate by giving students who vigorously disagree, even is that disagreement is given in such a way as to be disruptive, a lower grade or removal from the classroom.

Professor Althouse, I am usually on your side of an argument. However I think that you may be too harsh on Linda Chavez and too noncommital on the discriminatory practices of the University of Wisconsin and the Law School.

What is your opinion on the entrance requirements of the University and the Law School. It certainly seems that non-black students are being discriminated against. Or am I missing something?

After reading about the “Fighting Bob Fest” at Gateway Pundit it came to me that the reason that Ann believes that “not rioting” is good behavior is that she lives and works in Madison. Just as a soldier in a war zone perceives not being shot means peace has broken out, in Madison not assaulting a conservative is the height of civility. Those of us who live in more civilized places don’t have Ann’s experience and don’t understand.

It would seem to me that this affirmative action program does only 2 things:1)It increases the perceived value of a UWM non minority graduate.2)It decreases the perceived value of a UWM minority graduate.

Not sure if you're one of the trolls everyone is supposed to ignore, but...

You cannot rightly use the term "lying" about a situation where people are disagreeing (a) about what happened, or (b) about the significance of what happened. It seems patently obvious that there could be genuine disagreement over whether the occasional verbal antics at the lecture did, or did not, cross the line of "civility". So please don't further debase the word "lie" by insisting that it's the only explanation for the disagreement.

You’d think that a responsible university would denounce the intimidation and lack of civility by its students and faculty. Instead, Vice Provost Williams told the student paper, “I’m most excited about how well the students represented themselves, the passion with which they engaged, the respectful tone in how they did it and the thoughtfulness of their questions and interactions.”

I can't find a link for this. Did Williams make a point to separate the debate from the Doubletree incident in this description? Or is that only Althouse who is doing so? Did Williams make a public comment condemning what happened at the Doubletree?

Levi,Not sure if having continued UW-Madison idiocy highlighted helps the image of any of their graduates. But yes, AA does have one of those paradoxical negative effects on those it aims to help. Well..if people are aware of the policy. It kinda sorta helps "minorities" so long as "majorities" are unaware or forget about the policy. Perhaps the historical election of a questionably qualified/experienced Obama and his sealing of his academic records upon election has made some question the ultimate consequences of AA in academia and elsewhere. I'm happy to see the attention to this. Sure beats the environment when I was at U-Mad where a TA calmly explained to me that my project partner got a higher grade because she was an older returning student. This from someone teaching a course with barely intelligible English. Maybe they will do additional studies on sports "scholarships".

Gadfly, I read the link but am not sure what part of it was supposed to discredit the idea that MLK wanted a color blind society. Maybe in his promiscuity he embraced all colors equally. I mean..what folks say during sex is not to be taken too seriously. An atheist may still shout "Oh God!"

Everyone has to give Ann a pass on this one. As a member of the Madison community she has to defend it whenever possible. The conduct of her community has to be understood within the context of her experiences since she came here. Her personal story has to make her defensive about the attitudes of the people she works with who are sympathetic to her. Ann is the natural result of the academic world in which she lives. It’s to her credit that she manages to avoid the more typical reactions that Goldrick-Rab and Williams exhibit. Keep in mind that Madison is not actually the bright center of the universe for the rest of us, it’s attitudes are simply the norm for the people whose lives are lived in an isolated part of upstate Wisconsin and whose jobs are either student, teacher or government employee. Madison is one of those places whose two industries happen to be government and academia. A stranger culture is hard to come by.

As a side note, there are a few other towns that are state capitals while not the largest city in the state. Texas has Austin, but none are quite a disassociated from the rest of the state as Madison.

Chavez's demagoguery seems to be limited to interpreting Vice Provost Williams's statement as covering at least the Doubletree incident.

Is that really demagoguery? Was it clear from the context of Williams's statement that he/she was describing only the on-campus debate conduct?

Certainly Chavez is right when she says university officials applaud "name-calling" and "distortion". You quoted the post in which a professor described Chavez's outfit as "unashemedly racist." Or do you not perceive that as "name-calling" and "distortion", Ann?

So this boils down to whether Williams' statement could be reasonably interpreted as applying not only to the students' conduct at the on-campus debate, but to the students' conduct at the Doubletree as well.

(Funny how you blast the CEO for going too far into demogoguery, but let the accusations of "racism" go by without criticism. Guess only one side demogogues this issue? What were you saying about "half correct" and templates?)

"Moneyrunner said...Keep in mind that Madison is not actually the bright center of the universe for the rest of us, it’s attitudes are simply the norm for the people whose lives are lived in an isolated part of upstate Wisconsin and whose jobs are either student, teacher or government employee."

Madison is not in an "isolated part of upstate Wisconsin". It's actually south central. And hardly isolated, as is has significant suburban growth now (to the chagrin of the Madtown lefties. But the rest is pretty spot on.

I detect a New Yorker. In New York, when you leave the largest city -- unless you go out on Long Island -- you go "upstate." The user of that phrase probably thinks that in Wisconsin, Milwaukee is the equivalent of NYC. It probably seems almost merged with Chicago in the southeastern corner. That makes everything else "upstate."